The problem is picking and choosing. You want to hold some in contempt and
allow others to walk or in this case to stay. Thereby attempting to put value
on your opinions as you trash somebody elses opinions because they differ from
yours. Good job, say no but not a lot of thought given.

What the
entire government has done is allow those who have broken the law to in effect
be forgiven, they have turned their backs (and ours, because we elected them) on
the law of the land denied any justice and said because we are government and
know what is best for the country because we are elected the rest of us suffer
their shortsightedness.

Were individual members of the government to
get caught breaking the law they would be investigated, ie Mr. Swallow but as a
group they can take on the law and as a group they can choose to ignore and rise
above it and make a law unto themselves.

The sad thing is they have
the voter electorate all up in arms about something else while they do the dirty
work and pass whatever the deepest pockets want passed.

It is essential that these families be kept together. That is the message of
the Church and the compassionate and honorable way to procede. The process to
keep them together can be developed (several blueprints are already being
debated).

The children are citizens, the parents must be accommodated
and treated as citizens until full legal citizenship can be bestowed to them.

We are a family-dependent society. Many of us believe families are
forever. We know that families are God's special order here on earth.
Laws that do not provide for family protection and preservation must be changed.

I am an advocate of the complete regularization plan. However, on the other
hand, I think compromise is a good thing. Beyond that, there is a lot of ground
between deportation and getting citizenship. The fact that the house is
considering anything tells us some progress will be made.

Lastly,
whatever the house plan is, it is not hypocrisy. It is logical to treat people
brought here as children differently than those who brought them here. Whether
the treatment of those who came is justified and right is another issue, but
basing how we treat people on the age they came here is sensible. The senate
plan even has different paths to citizenship for those who came over and under a
certain age, so it is not like this is an approach unique to the house plan. The
differences are in the details, not in the overall plan.

@LDSThe children are NOT citizens. That's the whole point of the
DREAM Act.Their brothers and sisters might be if they were born here;
hence the term Anchor Baby.But the incentive is too great. There are
reports from hospitals in McAllen, Texas where pregnant women have crossed the
border illegally just so their baby can be born in the USA and be an instant
citizen. That was never the intent of the 14th Amendment and is being grossly
abused by lawless people.We need to remove the incentives for people to
risk life and limb to come here. And the DREAM Act is just another magnet.

I have two grandchildren that were born in Australia and they are not Australian they are Americans. My daughter and son-in-law have to apply Duel citizenship for their children. If you plan to visit AustraliaAnd
you want to become a citizen there you have three years to do itOr they
deport you.